Just as the climate conference focuses on 1.5C, the UN biodiversity conference appears to have found its north star – protecting 30% of land and sea by 2030. From the moment delegates landed at Montréal-Trudeau airport, adverts at the baggage carousel were frank about Canada’s aims for Cop15: achieving 30x30, the tagline for the proposal. The perceived success of the overall conference hangs on this single target, say those who support it.
The science is clear that humanity must better protect key parts of the planet. The destruction of forests and other vital ecosystems must stop by 2030 if the world is to meet 1.5C, according to the IPCC. But 30x30 is actually just one of more than 20 targets being agreed at the Cop15 biodiversity conference in Montreal, and it also happens to be one of the most divisive issues on the agenda. Everyone at the summit has an opinion about the most high-profile target and what it should mean: for some it is not ambitious enough, for others it is impossible to enforce, but the main criticism is that area-based conservation violates human rights.
This is because of associations of “fortress conservation”, where people who had been stewards of natural spaces for thousands of years were removed from protected areas. Since the 19th century, this has resulted in human rights abuses and millions of people being displaced from their homelands.
The language around Indigenous peoples at Cop15 is positive, with a focus on “rights-based conservation”, which means Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) are seen as protectors of land. This is supported by science – so even if someone disregarded human rights, it is the most effective way of protecting the planet. Indigenous peoples make up around 5% of the world’s population but they protect 80% of its remaining biodiversity.
In the current draft of the text, which will be completed at the end of the conference over the weekend of 17 December, the exact role of IPLCs when it comes to 30x30 is still being contested. Many are cautious – and these are the people who have the most to lose.
“There are very, very painful stories of how Indigenous peoples’ rights have been violated, how they have been killed, taken out of their territory and caused to become extinct because of the expansion or the establishment of protected areas,” says Jennifer Corpuz, who is part of the Kankana-ey Igorot people in the northern part of the Philippines. She represents the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity.
Corpuz is keen to start a new chapter, and supports the 30x30 target. “We are here as Indigenous peoples to send the message that we cannot achieve ambitious conservation targets without fully reflecting and respecting and protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples … We cannot achieve 30x30 without Indigenous peoples, I cannot overstress it,” she said.
But others question the mentality of those trying to enforce it – even if it looks good on paper. Lakpa Nuri Sherpa, who is from Nepal, and represents the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, questioned whether the “top-down” approach associated with 30x30 would work unless those implementing it radically changed their approach to Indigenous peoples. “That’s where the problem lies because the solution comes from the top, and they don’t really know the realities on the ground, and the ‘solution’ doesn’t become a solution,” he says, adding that it is crucial IPLCs are treated with trust and respect, with a “spirit of true partnership”.
To the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, 30x30 is a crucial part of a successful agreement for protecting key ecosystems and propelling Indigenous-based conservation models, especially in large countries, such as Brazil, Russia and China. He said his country was starting a “story of reconciliation” with Indigenous peoples.
In November 2021, a study contained maps of the ecosystems that humanity must not destroy in order to meet climate targets, which include the vast boreal forests and peatlands of Russia, China and the US, and the tropical forests of the Amazon, Congo basin and Indonesia. These areas hold 139bn tonnes of “irrecoverable” carbon and researchers said this is where 30x30 efforts should be concentrated.
There are a growing number of coalitions around protecting these ecosystems. At Cop27, Brazil, the DRC and Indonesia announced a big three rainforest coalition and said they would coordinate at UN climate and biodiversity talks on their conservation. The incoming Brazilian president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has said that he would convene a pan-Amazonian meeting on its conservation soon into his time in office. Indigenous groups proposed a protected area to cover the world’s largest rainforests, equivalent to the size of Mexico, to be created by 2025 at the last biodiversity summit in 2018, known as 80 by 25.
Campaign for Nature is pushing for conserving at least 30% of land and sea by 2030, seeing it as a milestone, with its director Brian O’Donnell describing it as a “floor not a ceiling”, saying the world should be pushing towards 50%, an important step to achieving Harvard biologist EO Wilson’s vision of protecting half the planet for the long-term survival of humanity. When talking about the areas that need to be preserved, it has to include the most biodiverse-rich areas, with connections between them to avoid island conservation, he says.
But another point of contention within the target is whether every country has to protect 30x30, or whether it is a global target (ie the Netherlands couldn’t make it, but countries like Brazil could do much more). In this case, richer countries with less biodiversity should be paying poorer, more biodiverse countries to not destroy their nature, as they are international – as well as national – assets.
Some countries are asking developed nations how they can be expected not to chop down their forests just as rich countries did in the past. In their opening statement at Cop15, the group of megadiverse countries, which includes Brazil, India and South Africa, said the 30% target would require significant financial and technical support
O’Donnell says: “They’re talking about a financial package for the whole framework, but a lot of people are discussing it in terms of the 30x30 target.”
Representatives of IPLCs say that even if this money is agreed, it could not reach the people stewarding the land. “It’s not for building theme parks,” one representative said at the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity press conference. They have reason to be worried – at Cop27, $1.7bn was pledged to Indigenous peoples in recognition of their role in protecting biodiversity, but the first year progress report found only 7% of total funding went to IPLC organisations.
Another issue is whether sustainable use of resources should be allowed within these protected areas and, therefore, what it actually means for something to be protected.
In England, for example, the government says it is protecting around 28% of land for nature, but in reality it is closer to 3%, one report found. The EU – which is championing 30x30 – was accused of trying to water down the target by arguing that extractive industries, such as mining and drilling, should be allowed in protected areas, provided they do not negatively affect biodiversity.
Some argue that 30x30 is a distraction from the rampant overconsumption that drives biodiversity loss – and it is actually the endless extraction of the planet’s resources that needs to be tackled. If achieved in isolation, 30x30 would just result in more rapid destruction of the remaining 70% of the planet, not under official, state protection. This is where other targets – such as businesses taking into account their impacts on nature, rewilding subsidies, cutting down pollution and pesticides – all become important.
Achieving an agreement on 30x30 will be a milestone, but Cop15 will only have any hope of stemming biodiversity loss if all parts of the agreement work.
Find more age of extinction coverage here, and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on Twitter for all the latest news and features
• This article was amended on 15 December 2022 to include the photographer’s name, Mike Muzurakis, in the credit for the final image.
